Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

That would be more of a narrative reason for Kinzo to be dead rather than a "proof".

So your theory is that Battler physically demonstrates that Kinzo is dead, and that due to reason X Kinzo's death allows him to brought back into the family to come to the island for the family conference. Sounds like Kinzo has to be written out of the story for Battler to be introduced.

The things is though that Battler has to chose to come back to family register. He can't be "brought back". So even if Kinzo is dead that doesn't force him to join the family again. We haven't been given a reason for why he rejoined the family, but his grandfather dying wouldn't be a reason for him to chose to do that so I think it's unrelated.

So your theory is that Battler physically demonstrates that Kinzo is dead, and that due to reason X Kinzo's death allows him to brought back into the family to come to the island for the family conference. Sounds like Kinzo has to be written out of the story for Battler to be introduced.

Yes, that's it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judoh

The things is though that Battler has to chose to come back to family register. He can't be "brought back". So even if Kinzo is dead that doesn't force him to join the family again. We haven't been given a reason for why he rejoined the family, but his grandfather dying wouldn't be a reason for him to chose to do that so I think it's unrelated.

Umm let me reword it a bit. Rudolf and Kyrie had no reason to bring Battler back into the family until Kinzo died. Yes, they wanted him back because he was family, but it was his choice to leave, so they were okay with it. Then, Kinzo dies. That gives Rudolf and Kyrie a reason to convince Battler to come back. Rudolf is so desperate to get the inheritance that he begs on his knees for Battler to come back. It wasn't guaranteed, it was a risk Rudolf was taking. Battler accepts Rudolf's offer, unaware that Rudolf was doing it for inheritance money, and also unaware that Kinzo died at all. In other words, Battler chose to come back because he sympathized with his father, who wanted him back (because of Kinzo's death). If Kinzo never died, Rudolf wouldn't have begged Battler to come back.

Even if evidence existed that Kinzo was dead, it wouldn't rise to the level of 100% certainty necessary to construct a red truth, and of course a blue truth doesn't constitute a proof. So I think casting about for evidence is the wrong way to look at this; instead, you need to account for why Battler was able to establish Kinzo's death even though he didn't have certain evidence. Somehow, Battler was able to turn the fact that he had no evidence into a weapon.

That only works if his gold truth reversed the burden of proof, placing it on Dlanor instead of himself. In that situation, precisely because there was no evidence, Dlanor would have had no way to argue against his proposed "process" (that the unidentified corpse he presented was Kinzo's). And of course no one could do anything about the "result" (Kinzo is dead) because it was actually true. Since Battler's gold stood unchallenged by the detective side and had an objectively true result, it became a "proof".

Maybe a good example would be a scientific paper with a particular experimental result. You can think of the data and arguments in the paper as a gold truth. Because of the scientist's reputation, those data and arguments form a "proof" of the result. That proof isn't objective, and only works so long as there is a lack of evidence that the scientist's process is untrustworthy. If the result turns out to be wrong later due to other evidence, that could also destroy the scientist's "proof". However, if there is no evidence against the process, and the result is objectively correct, then the process might as well be correct even if it was completely made up.

__________________

"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."

This talk on gold truth reminded me of some notes I made on it a little while back.
I believe I remember some one saying that when they elaborate on what gold truth is in Episode 6, that the gold is a combination of red and blue.
The red is truth, it doesn't need evidence or proof, we must accept it as the truth.
The blue is theory, ideas based on the observations of the player/reader.
Combining the two, we get a truth based off of the observations- a witness' truth.
I personally think the gold is the truth of humans. Some people say that the blue is the truth of humans, but I don't think that quite works. Because the blue isn't really truth. It's only ever speculation. Speculation that can become a fake truth. For example, in Battler and Erika's battle in the ura-tea party of Episode 5, both of them can establish the "truth" using blue. But the two separate truths are completely different. There's no such thing as two separate truths. I can't say "I have two apples" and right after, without gaining more apples "I have three apples," without one of the statements being a lie, or an improper observation.
But when you use the gold, it can sometimes beat the red, but also lose against the red. Which is why I think the gold is the human's truth, as the truth of a witness. A witness doesn't need to procure evidence, the point of a witness is to bring proof where physical evidence is lacking. Where there is no evidence against it, the witness' statement becomes truth. Notice how Lambdadelta, as the Game Master, says "gold truth, accepted," when Battler uses it. Like LyricalAura said, the lack of evidence became a weapon for him. Since there is no proof on the island, no one can find truth that denies his witness account.
Which is the weak point of the gold. It is the truth, as long as it not contradicted by other truths. With the blue, both "truths" are true and false at the same time. With red, you simply cannot say contradicting statements. The gold is stronger than the red when there is no red proof that can deny it's existence, which Dlanor made unavailable to herself as well when she cut off the red. But if a previously unused red is brought up afterwards, it's like bringing evidence into a court trial which contradicts a witness' statement, making it null.

This talk on gold truth reminded me of some notes I made on it a little while back.
I believe I remember some one saying that when they elaborate on what gold truth is in Episode 6, that the gold is a combination of red and blue.
The red is truth, it doesn't need evidence or proof, we must accept it as the truth.
The blue is theory, ideas based on the observations of the player/reader.
Combining the two, we get a truth based off of the observations- a witness' truth.
I personally think the gold is the truth of humans. Some people say that the blue is the truth of humans, but I don't think that quite works. Because the blue isn't really truth. It's only ever speculation. Speculation that can become a fake truth. For example, in Battler and Erika's battle in the ura-tea party of Episode 5, both of them can establish the "truth" using blue. But the two separate truths are completely different. There's no such thing as two separate truths. I can't say "I have two apples" and right after, without gaining more apples "I have three apples," without one of the statements being a lie, or an improper observation.
But when you use the gold, it can sometimes beat the red, but also lose against the red. Which is why I think the gold is the human's truth, as the truth of a witness. A witness doesn't need to procure evidence, the point of a witness is to bring proof where physical evidence is lacking. Where there is no evidence against it, the witness' statement becomes truth. Notice how Lambdadelta, as the Game Master, says "gold truth, accepted," when Battler uses it. Like LyricalAura said, the lack of evidence became a weapon for him. Since there is no proof on the island, no one can find truth that denies his witness account.
Which is the weak point of the gold. It is the truth, as long as it not contradicted by other truths. With the blue, both "truths" are true and false at the same time. With red, you simply cannot say contradicting statements. The gold is stronger than the red when there is no red proof that can deny it's existence, which Dlanor made unavailable to herself as well when she cut off the red. But if a previously unused red is brought up afterwards, it's like bringing evidence into a court trial which contradicts a witness' statement, making it null.

I don't think we can put it into terms of witness accounts because Battler said the he guaranteed that it was Kinzo's corpse, but he didn't say how could or if he even saw it. It just became an unquestioned truth for some unknown reason.

Maybe a good example would be a scientific paper with a particular experimental result. You can think of the data and arguments in the paper as a gold truth. Because of the scientist's reputation, those data and arguments form a "proof" of the result. That proof isn't objective, and only works so long as there is a lack of evidence that the scientist's process is untrustworthy. If the result turns out to be wrong later due to other evidence, that could also destroy the scientist's "proof". However, if there is no evidence against the process, and the result is objectively correct, then the process might as well be correct even if it was completely made up.

Or you could even say that the scientists cheated. They looked up what the result "should" scientifically be, and then lied about the process used to get that result.

There are three parts to this problem, right?

1. Proving Kinzo is dead
2. Proving that corpse is Kinzo's dead body
3. How did Battler know the solution to those?

The third one is actually easy to answer. Since Battler knew everything at that point, it would make sense for him to know those things for certain. But even if Battler knows it is true, he still needs to prove it. He can't prove it objectively.

If you compare it to the scientific paper, Battler's knowledge of the truth would be the conclusion. His assertion that it is Kinzo's corpse would be his hypothesis. All that is left is the experiment and data -- in other words, a demonstration which connects the two together. One kind of demonstration would be Battler's own existence on the island, as I explained in my other posts. Since we don't know the true reason why Rudolf begged his son to come back to the family, I can still speculate that it was because of Kinzo's death. If that were true, it does serve as a proof which connects the two together.

Going with the scientific paper analogy even further, let's compare it to the window-jumping scene.

Hypothesis: Kinzo jumped out the window and escaped into the forest.

Experiment: Battler jumped out the window and landed safely on the ground.

Conclusion: It was possible for Kinzo to jump out the window and escape.

It fits very nicely, actually. I wonder if the colored truths are just a creative way to go about the scientific method.

We should remember that figuring out the gold is not about what it does, but how it's used. What situations is it best in and what situations is it bad in. Ryuksihi described it as a like a finishing move in a fighting game, which is EXACTLY how I described it when I related the colored texts to a court case.

One interesting thing though about the braun trial analogy is that we have a thing called double jeopardy in court. In other words if someone is proven innocent for a crime once they can't be accused of that crime a second time. So If Nanjo for example is innocent in episode 1 he'd be innocent in all other games because of double jeopardy .

We should remember that figuring out the gold is not about what it does, but how it's used. What situations is it best in and what situations is it bad in. Ryuksihi described it as a like a finishing move in a fighting game, which is EXACTLY how I described it when I related the colored texts to a court case.

Considering no one used it until both the red and blue were sealed off, it's not something that a person would want to use to prove something...

..because your experiment could be flawed?

EDIT :

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judoh

One interesting thing though about the braun trial analogy is that we have a thing called double jeopardy in court. In other words if someone is proven innocent for a crime once they can't be accused of that crime a second time. So If Nanjo for example is innocent in episode 1 he'd be innocent in all other games because of double jeopardy .

That might be a good way to eliminate suspects, then, assuming this is like a court trial.

One interesting thing though about the braun trial analogy is that we have a thing called double jeopardy in court. In other words if someone is proven innocent for a crime once they can't be accused of that crime a second time. So If Nanjo for example is innocent in episode 1 he'd be innocent in all other games because of double jeopardy .

But we were shown that each crime (each murder) could have been done by a different person. Isn't each twilight a different crime. So going by your statment.
Nanjo was proven innocent in game one's 6-8th twlight = I can't accuse him of being the culprit of that crime (6-8th twilight).

If each twilight isn't a different crime, for sure each game could be considered a different crime. (After all the killer HAS to be different for each game)

Cause if we say double jeopardy is true(if the crime is all the games) haven't we eliminated everyone?

Edit: The meaning for double jeopardy I found was.
First, under double jeopardy, a defendant can not be prosecuted a second time for the same offense after an acquittal. The second right that double jeopardy protects is the right a defendant has to not be prosecuted a second time for the same offense after a conviction. Lasly, the same offense can not warrant multiple punishments, or sentences.

Considering no one used it until both the red and blue were sealed off, it's not something that a person would want to use to prove something...

..because your experiment could be flawed?

We may not have seen it in text form, but that doesn't necessarily mean it hasn't been used before. Weren't there a bunch of scenes in EP1-2 where golden butterflies were fluttering around, and then we found out later that the witnesses to those scenes were lying about things?

So here's a hypothetical usage:

Kyrie sees Shannon being scolded harshly by Natsuhi and decides she might be a weak point in the Kinzo coverup. She follows after Shannon to get her alone, and a golden butterfly drifts along behind her. Later, after Shannon has been killed by the murderer, she confronts Natsuhi and claims that Shannon confessed everything to her about Kinzo's death.

Effectively, this scene presents Kyrie's claim that "Shannon told me everything about how Father died" without actually stating it outright in gold. And of course, with Shannon dead, there's nobody who can refute that claim except the game master, so it becomes "endless magic".

__________________

"Something has fallen on us that falls very seldom on men; perhaps the worst thing that can fall on them. We have found the truth; and the truth makes no sense."

Effectively, this scene presents Kyrie's claim that "Shannon told me everything about how Father died" without actually stating it outright in gold. And of course, with Shannon dead, there's nobody who can refute that claim except the game master, so it becomes "endless magic".

So in other words, the best time to use the gold text would be when your opponent has no way to disprove it. It's like a devil's proof, right? We've had the gold text from the very beginning, and just didn't notice it.

Likewise, in a scientific experiment, if there's no way to disprove the "process", then it becomes a "result". I've been thinking about it, and this might be a good way to look at the colored texts:

Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion

Hypothesis, Experiment, False Conclusion

In this way, the gold can be weaker than the red, but also stronger. You can have a conclusion, but unless you back it up with a scientific demonstration, it won't have any credibility. Also, you can have an experiment that leads to a false conclusion, making it weaker than the true conclusion.

Now, back to what you were saying. If no one is around to disprove it, then even a false conclusion can be accepted as the truth. Maybe Battler was relying on this when he guaranteed Kinzo's death?

Hypothesis: (has some evidence to back it up, but is not a sure thing)

Test hypothesis

if your hypothesis fails during the experiment go back to step one

Theory (has lots of evidence to back it up. A theory is an explanation or a guess as to why the hypothesis works)

Conclusion

EDIT: Oh and there are no "false conclusions" in the scientific method. A theory can be true for the time and be disproven later, but because all the data pointed towards it being true it was not false for it's time. So you can't have a false conclusion. You can have a fudged data, or a failed experiment because of a false hypothesis, but there are no such things as "false conclusions".

Hypothesis: (has some evidence to back it up, but is not a sure thing)

Test hypothesis

if your hypothesis fails during the experiment go back to step one

Theory (has lots of evidence to back it up. A theory is an explanation or a guess as to why the hypothesis works)

Conclusion

There are many experiments in which a false conclusion is reached. It's because of flaws in the experiment that favored one side over the other. Think of it like Natsuhi's trial in EP5.

-We observed the scene of the crime during the narrative.
-Hypothesis: Natsuhi is the culprit.
-The hypothesis was tested by proving that everyone else has alibis. The test, or experiment, was flawed. This leads to a false conclusion later on.
-Theory: Natsuhi is the culprit because alibis have been proven for all suspects other than her.
- (False) Conclusion: Natsuhi is the culprit.

But now we know that the conclusion is false. Natsuhi is not the culprit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judoh

EDIT: Oh and there are no "false conclusions" in the scientific method. A theory can be true for the time and be disproven later, but because all the data pointed towards it being true it was not false for it's time. So you can't have a false conclusion. You can have a fudged data, or a failed experiment because of a false hypothesis, but there are no such things as "false conclusions".

I just showed an example of one of these. Everyone believed it (except Battler and Natsuhi). Yes, it's definitely for the reasons you mentioned. I wouldn't know what else to call it other than a "false conclusion".

I don't understand why the blue can't be used as a conclusion then. There are examples of it doing that even though Battler was reluctant to. And the gold is really just a finishing move it's not really meant to be used often. That's why it was hidden for so long.

Observation: I am Ushiromiya BattlerI am the golden witch Beatrice

Hypothesis: It is from Asumu that Ushiromiya Battler was bornIf this Battler is not born from Asumu he is not fit to be my opponent

Experiment: The experiment disproved this. Who his mother is is irrelevant to being related to the Ushiromiya family head.

Theory: The one who is qualified to be Beato's opponent is 'Kinzo's grandson Ushiromiya Battler', and whether you are 'Asumu's son' or not is no problem

Conclusion: Thus, even if you are not Asumu's son, you can be Kinzo's grandson. As long as you are Rudolf's son!

No golden truth was necessary to reach the conclusion. Just an unchallenged Blue truth.

Conclusion: Thus, even if you are not Asumu's son, you can be Kinzo's grandson. As long as you are Rudolf's son!

That's still part of the theory, not conclusion. The conclusion would be Because you are Rudolf's son, you are Kinzo's grandson, and therefore able to participate in the game. But there's no decisive evidence proving that Battler is Rudolf's son, so it can't be said yet.

EDIT: There would need to be an experiment done to prove that Battler is Rudolf's son. That would be the gold text required in order to make the conclusion.

That's still part of the theory, not conclusion. The conclusion would be Because you are Rudolf's son, you are Kinzo's grandson, and therefore able to participate in the game. But there's no decisive evidence proving that Battler is Rudolf's son, so it can't be said yet.

EDIT: There would need to be an experiment done to prove that Battler is Rudolf's son. That would be the gold text required in order to make the conclusion.

Nope it was an established (or at least unquestioned) fact after that that Battler is Kinzo's grandson, since Ange is his sister, and that he was qualified to be Beato's opponent. It was never said in red, but that doesn't matter because this conclusion led to the shackle rule (which was also never said in red) that kept Beato from escaping from the game again.

Which makes me wonder what Lambda's position really is since she can make rules for the game out of thin air without the game master's permission.

That's still part of the theory, not conclusion. The conclusion would be Because you are Rudolf's son, you are Kinzo's grandson, and therefore able to participate in the game. But there's no decisive evidence proving that Battler is Rudolf's son, so it can't be said yet.

EDIT: There would need to be an experiment done to prove that Battler is Rudolf's son. That would be the required gold in order to make the conclusion.

Sorry to derail, but there's one thing that I should mention.

There is a red by Battler: "Ange is, ...my little sister."

Let us assume that the definition of 'mother' requires a blood relation. Then 'little sister', a term from the same group, also has to include only blood relations. Then we must suppose 'the other Battler' must exist or have existed to satisfy "Ushiromiya Battler's mother is Ushiromiya Asumu.", and one of the two must be true, though not necessarily both:

Our-Battler and Ange share a mother.
As far as we are aware, that can only be Kyrie.

Our-Battler and Ange share a father.
That could actually be anyone, but to satisfy the qualification of being Kinzo's grandson only one candidate other than Rudolf is available, that is, Krauss.

Consequently, if it can be proven that Ange's father is Rudolf and mother is Kyrie, Battler's mother is inevitably Kyrie if this red can be used. So such an experiment need not even involve Battler himself - Ange could order DNA testing on herself in 1998 if any samples of Kyrie and Rudolf's DNA are available.

But, if we assume that the terms 'mother' and 'sister' do not necessarily describe a blood relation, but can describe any kind of family bond, all of this mess suddenly disappears together with the other Battler and the name ambiguity rules.

EDIT: Mind you, that still wouldn't prove Battler is Kinzo's grandson, unless his own DNA sample were available to establish being related to Rudolf or Krauss.

__________________

"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

Then it would make sense that the experiment would be a DNA test of some sort to prove that Ange is related to Kinzo. There aren't any problems with that.

There should be sufficient experiments Ange herself can perform in 1998 to prove she is related to both Battler and Kinzo, establishing Battler as Kinzo's grandson.

But the fun part is that they only work with that red about Ange being Battler's sister if 'sister' and 'mother' used in red necessarily involve a blood relation.

If we accept that they do so, we need to accept there might be someone else rightfully entitled to the name Battler and reevaluate all red that refers to Battler, because, knowing our luck, this guy is on the island somewhere.

If they do not, and can actually describe a family bond not built on blood relation, Battler can actually have a unique name, the other Battler vanishes, but our Battler's identity becomes so much more vague and open to possibilities....

__________________

"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"

If we are to believe the Ep5 Kinzo Phantom Conspiracy scenes, the following are the facts:

Kinzo died within a few months before the 1985 conference.

Concealment of his death was required to prevent Krauss' embezzlement of Kinzo's personal fortune being exposed.

The initial plan was to pick an opportune moment to declare Kinzo missing.

Let us assume that the above is all true. Then the following questions come up:

Is the corpse discovered during the games indeed Kinzo's corpse?
This is supposedly confirmed in Battler's gold, "I guarantee that this corpse is Ushiromiya Kinzo's corpse...!!". It naturally follows that even if other instances of a 12-toed burned corpse being discovered are not Kinzo's corpse, it is possible for Kinzo's corpse to be recovered and burned. Additionally, I have already mentioned the particular kind of polydactily Kinzo supposedly has, (unlike 'any' polydactily which is 2 in 1000 live births), is so rare that it can possibly make his corpse completely unique in this moment on Earth and makes getting another one to substitute a Bernkastel-style miracle.

Why was Kinzo not declared missing sometime in between the 1985 and 1986 conference?
Kinzo would only be declared legally dead seven years later, which is more than enough for anything Krauss wanted to do, and before that, nothing would change. Possible reasons to hold off on the declaration would include the said declaration being somehow detrimental to the success of Krauss' plans to make up for his embezzlement. After all, his business is based on trust, which such news could endanger. However, and that's the biggest question...

What possible reasons could anyone have to keep the corpse intact?
The plan to declare Kinzo missing specifically prevents doing any kind of autopsy or even presenting his corpse at all. You can't do that at all if you have the corpse on hand. They have 4 square kilometers of the island to bury it, and an incinerator to burn it and spread the ashes across the sea. They had numerous opportunities to shuffle the uninvolved people off the island for a day and hold a funeral, or slowly roast it, and none would be the wiser.

Upon rereading Ep1, I have concluded that the corpse has to be kept in the study, marinating in a tub of embalming fluid, embalmed in the manner of medical cadavers for anatomy studies -- i.e. pumped full of formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde. That would preserve it for up to a year or so, which is what it is supposed to have endured. This is a simple operation quite possible for Nanjo no matter how competent or incompetent he is, and he has ready access to all the components of such embalming fluids. This also allows it to be securely hidden from anyone because only a very select few people are allowed access into the study, and they all are members of the Kinzo Phantom Conspiracy in the first place, and at the same time, makes it easy for anyone involved in it to make a snap decision to burn the corpse by tossing it out of the window of the study.

However, the contradiction between the declared goal of the conspiracy and the actual things it ends up doing remains even if that is true, because keeping the corpse around is actually detrimental to the goal of keeping Kinzo's death hidden. Discovery of the body automatically means it fails, preventing discovery requires extra effort for no good reason.

There are only a few ways out of this predicament that I see:

Kinzo did not actually die in the manner described, but indeed went missing before the 1985 conference, which fact was concealed -- possibly retreating to Kuwadorian for a year. He returned to his study and died very shortly before the 1986 conference, which satisfies the red.
I don't think there's any red that specifies how long ago did Kinzo actually die, so it should be possible in theory -- but highly improbable as there's no hints for this that I remember.

The corpse was actually buried, but someone is capable of digging it up and sticking it in the incinerator
I have already mentioned it's not a job for one person, because if the grave was dug in any proper manner, it's 2 meters deep. Dragging the corpse around to the boiler room would involve numerous discovery risks, lots of effort and time. Especially considering that the best place for the grave is somewhere deep in the forest, where nobody ever goes -- which is quite a long way to haul the corpse back.
Not to mention that numerous mentions of the smells in Kinzo's study would become non-hints and Natsuhi's behaviour in Ep1 becomes quite puzzling.

The corpse is actually not Kinzo's corpse.
That would mean Battler's gold statement is in some peculiar manner not true, which I find quite dangerous even though there's so little gold we have seen around, not to mention how incredibly improbable it would be that another corpse with this kind of polydactily exists at all. Not to mention that I fail to see any hints that any other character has any kind of polydactily at all, let alone a direct copy of Kinzo's.

The conspiracy's declared goal is a lie.
This one I consider the most interesting, because it's the one I find most supported by the text and common sense logic... Whatever the reason Kinzo's death was concealed, it is not because they were planning to declare him missing when everything blows over, and the corpse was required for some kind of unknown plan. The requirement was strong enough and important enough to actually keep the corpse crudely embalmed in inadequate conditions for a year.

So which is it?

__________________

"The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."
— Paul K. Feyerabend, "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge"